Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Hmmmmmmmm ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Eyewitness testimony from multiple sources who really had nothing to gain is a good start.
    Add the drastic change in the lives of the Apostles, including Paul. The Apostles went from trembling cowards to men unafraid die a horrible death and/or endure horrible punishments for merely preaching the Word!! Paul gave up a lie of position, privilege, and prestige for a life of destitution, deprivation, and ultimately early death after his meeting with the risen Savior!! WHY???

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Eyewitness testimony from multiple sources who really had nothing to gain is a good start.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_...e_Eyewitnesses
      Would this be what you mean by eyewitness?....

      If I understand this correctly---the gospels are written by eyewitness but were "transmitted as anonymous traditions". ....and this concept is the basis for your belief/faith?

      In your opinion---should faith be tested?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by siam View Post

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_...e_Eyewitnesses
        Would this be what you mean by eyewitness?....

        If I understand this correctly---the gospels are written by eyewitness but were "transmitted as anonymous traditions". ....and this concept is the basis for your belief/faith?

        In your opinion---should faith be tested?
        It was common during that time not to put your name on to your writings so technically they're "anonymous" although the early church would have known who the authors were. The very fact that no other names were attributed to them is strong testimony in favor of the traditional attributions are indeed correct. If the authors were truly unknown there would have been a tendency to attribute them to those who were in the inner circle and not folks like Mark and Luke.

        And yes, we should weigh the evidence before putting our faith in something.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          It was common during that time not to put your name on to your writings so technically they're "anonymous" although the early church would have known who the authors were. The very fact that no other names were attributed to them is strong testimony in favor of the traditional attributions are indeed correct. If the authors were truly unknown there would have been a tendency to attribute them to those who were in the inner circle and not folks like Mark and Luke.

          And yes, we should weigh the evidence before putting our faith in something.
          very interesting....
          So...you are saying that the early Church was "aware" who the writers/authors were but did not leave any names, genealogies or biographies of these authors/writers as evidence. The works are "attributed" to common-folk such as Mark...etc...and this fact in itself is considered strong enough "evidence" as a truth-claim for a Christian?. ...is this correct?

          Weighing faith----There is the example of Galileo and of the Church rejecting "evidence"---what is your stance on such issues from a Christian ethico-moral perspective?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by siam View Post

            very interesting....
            So...you are saying that the early Church was "aware" who the writers/authors were but did not leave any names, genealogies or biographies of these authors/writers as evidence. The works are "attributed" to common-folk such as Mark...etc...and this fact in itself is considered strong enough "evidence" as a truth-claim for a Christian?. ...is this correct?

            Weighing faith----There is the example of Galileo and of the Church rejecting "evidence"---what is your stance on such issues from a Christian ethico-moral perspective?
            The names attributed to them date back to antiquity with folks such as Irenaeus, who was active in the mid to late 2nd cent. and who almost certainly got his information from Papias (c. 60 -- c.130 AD)[1], providing the names of the authors in a very casual, off-handed way suggesting he is relaying common knowledge. That and the fact there is zero variety when it comes to attribution indicates a very early and vigorous tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospels. And again, given that they are attributed to what could be described as minor characters (with the exception of perhaps John[2]), rather than the big names, like the author of most of the later "gospels" did in an attempt to provide authority to their works, is even further evidence that those who the works were ascribed to were the actual authors.

            There are some clues in the books themselves for the attributions as well. In the case of Matthew, for instance, unlike the parallel passages of Mark 2:13-17 and Luke 5:27-32, Matthew 9:9-13 contains a significance difference in that the author refers to the tax collector as "Matthew" while the other Gospels call him "Levi" -- but all three list Matthew, not Levi, as a disciple of Jesus in their lists of the 12 (Mark 3:16-18; Matthew 10:2-4; Luke 6:13-16). And yet the list in Matthew adds "the tax collector" after Matthew's name. Scholars have argued that the obvious reason for this is that Matthew is adding a self-deprecating identification after his name and substituting his new (apostolic) name in 9:9-13 in exactly the same manner that Paul (originally known as Saul) did in his Epistles.


            As for Galileo, that was a complicated, convoluted mess, but much of it was due to the Church not looking kindly on a layman telling them how they must read Scripture.





            1. Eusebius clearly quotes Papias as saying that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written by Matthew and Mark.

            2. there still is some question as to which John although the self-description of "the disciple who Jesus loved" suggests it was the Apostle John who was the source
            Last edited by rogue06; 11-25-2020, 08:39 AM.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              The names attributed to them date back to antiquity with folks such as Irenaeus, who was active in the mid to late 2nd cent. and who almost certainly got his information from Papias (c. 60 -- c.130 AD)[1], providing the names of the authors in a very casual, off-handed way suggesting he is relaying common knowledge. That and the fact there is zero variety when it comes to attribution indicates a very early and vigorous tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospels. And again, given that they are attributed to what could be described as minor characters (with the exception of perhaps John[2]), rather than the big names, like the author of most of the later "gospels" did in an attempt to provide authority to their works, is even further evidence that those who the works were ascribed to were the actual authors.

              There are some clues in the books themselves for the attributions as well. In the case of Matthew, for instance, unlike the parallel passages of Mark 2:13-17 and Luke 5:27-32, Matthew 9:9-13 contains a significance difference in that the author refers to the tax collector as "Matthew" while the other Gospels call him "Levi" -- but all three list Matthew, not Levi, as a disciple of Jesus in their lists of the 12 (Mark 3:16-18; Matthew 10:2-4; Luke 6:13-16). And yet the list in Matthew adds "the tax collector" after Matthew's name. Scholars have argued that the obvious reason for this is that Matthew is adding a self-deprecating identification after his name and substituting his new (apostolic) name in 9:9-13 in exactly the same manner that Paul (originally known as Saul) did in his Epistles.


              As for Galileo, that was a complicated, convoluted mess, but much of it was due to the Church not looking kindly on a layman telling them how they must read Scripture.





              1. Eusebius clearly quotes Papias as saying that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written by Matthew and Mark.

              2. there still is some question as to which John although the self-description of "the disciple who Jesus loved" suggests it was the Apostle John who was the source
              The balancing act between preserving "theology" and assenting to knowledge/wisdom may have been difficult. It appears, to me, that Christianity (Church) erred on the side of caution...perhaps resulting in more detriment to itself in the long term....?....

              Both Islam and Christianity share in the concept of One God.

              In the paradigm of Tawheed (Unity)---One God created ALL of humanity. As such, in the eyes of God, all humanity is of equivalent value and therefore God sent his guidance/wisdom/knowledge to all humanity. That is why the "chosen people" idea is discouraged---the notion that only a certain group of people were specially selected for guidance. Therefore, all knowledge --- Pagan Greek or Shamanistic Chinese or Zoroastrian Persian or Polytheist Hindu...(or secular Science)...etc...---all is from God. Thus Muslims were able to learn from anyone and anywhere---the only restriction being that it (knowledge) should not contradict the principle (paradigm) of Tawheed. (...because Tawheed brings benefit to humanity). This attitude towards knowledge coupled with the mass production of paper and the expansion of the "Islamicate" brought about a rapid progress in the acquisition, research, production, and distribution of knowledge.

              Do you think it is possible for Christianity to embrace a more inclusive attitude towards knowledge or is the idea of the "other"/devil too strong for that?
              Last edited by siam; 11-28-2020, 02:50 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                [QUOTE=siam;n1209676] Both Islam and Christianity share in the concept of One God.[/QUOTE

                But Muhammad's god is not THE GOD of the Bible. Otherwise Muslims would not be mandated to fight the "people of the book" Christians, now would they?????

                Originally posted by siam View Post
                In the paradigm of Tawheed ( ....
                A coined word ... right??

                Comment


                • #53
                  What was the point of the OP to begin with?
                  "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                    What was the point of the OP to begin with?
                    Curiosity, sir. I thought it was obvious.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      What was the point of the OP to begin with?
                      I appreciate curiosity and questioning. All people of faith should have the curiosity to seek more knowledge.

                      There seems to be a bit of a comprehension problem on my part with Trucker's line of thoughts/perspective. I cannot grasp his logic/reasoning...for example, he is asking if Tawheed is a coined word or not---Lived languages evolve and develop, ---So I see no particular point in an etymology of a word unless it further adds to our understanding/definition/meaning-making.
                      I do not know how I can add further to this subject than already discussed.....
                      ---probably in some Christian apologetics corner---this all makes sense. But since Christian apologetics is not an area of interest for me---(it concerns issues that Christians are interested in)---and therefore, is not necessarily of mutual interest such as an interfaith dialogue might be......

                      Questions from Atheists/Agnostics are interesting because they do the research---(at least the ones I have interacted with) and this makes for uniquely interesting questions.....

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by siam View Post
                        I appreciate curiosity and questioning. All people of faith should have the curiosity to seek more knowledge.
                        Bingo! We agree.

                        Originally posted by siam View Post
                        There seems to be a bit of a comprehension problem on my part with Trucker's line of thoughts/perspective. I cannot grasp his logic/reasoning...for example, he is asking if Tawheed is a coined word or not---Lived languages evolve and develop, ---So I see no particular point in an etymology of a word unless it further adds to our understanding/definition/meaning-making.
                        Well allow me to help you out with your alleged comprehension problem here. One of the alleged issues the Muslims habitually try to bring to the table is the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity. As I am sure you are aware, the Doctrine of the Trinity [or "Triunity"} is one of the Cardinal Christian Doctrines! One claim the Muslims make in opposition to the Trinity is that the word "Trinity" does not appear anywhere in the Scriptures. One of the most important teachings of Islam [as I think you have pointed out in previous posts] is this "Tawheed" thingie .... the absolute oneness of Allah. Thus Tawheed [in whatever spelling variation] is to the Muslim the absolute refutation of the Trinity.

                        With this all in mind I think it only fair to ask the Muslim; Just where does this word "Tawheed" come from? Where in the Qur'an is this word that is so important in Islamic Theology to be found?


                        [QUOTE=siam;n1211207] I do not know how I can add further to this subject than already discussed.....[/QUOTE

                        So simple ... you could have just answered the elementary grade question straight up instead of all the bloviations. Just as Trinity does not appear in the Scriptures the Tawheed does not appear in the Qur'an. Right?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Trucker View Post

                          Bingo! We agree.

                          Well allow me to help you out with your alleged comprehension problem here. One of the alleged issues the Muslims habitually try to bring to the table is the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity. As I am sure you are aware, the Doctrine of the Trinity [or "Triunity"} is one of the Cardinal Christian Doctrines! One claim the Muslims make in opposition to the Trinity is that the word "Trinity" does not appear anywhere in the Scriptures. One of the most important teachings of Islam [as I think you have pointed out in previous posts] is this "Tawheed" thingie .... the absolute oneness of Allah. Thus Tawheed [in whatever spelling variation] is to the Muslim the absolute refutation of the Trinity.

                          With this all in mind I think it only fair to ask the Muslim; Just where does this word "Tawheed" come from? Where in the Qur'an is this word that is so important in Islamic Theology to be found?

                          Does it appear in the Quran?---Yes it does......but its complicated..............

                          As explained before---the Arabic language is NOT English and therefore does not follow the rules of English language grammar...obviously.....

                          Words in the Semitic languages are formed using root-words...and these then form into various grammatical terms....

                          The 2 Arabic words that exemplify tawheed are---ahad (unique) and wahid (one)
                          ahad appears 85 times in the Quran (in 2 forms)
                          https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=AHd
                          wahid appears 68 times in the Quran (in 4 forms)
                          https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wHd

                          Tawheed comes from wahid/wahada.
                          https://portalislam.org/index.php/tawheed-of-allah
                          The word "Tawheed" is grammatically a gerund, a noun made from a verb, the Arabic verb it is derived from is wahada or wahidu. The verb wahada means to unify something, to make something one or to declare something to be one. Linguistically tawheed means to affirm and declare something to be one, i.e. unification into one. Islamically it is in reference to Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) being singled out alone, in all that is particular to him. This uniqueness and oneness, separating Him and distinguishing Him from His creation is the opposite of 'Shirk' which is to associate partners with Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) by giving His qualities and attributes, to other than Allah

                          Tawheed/Tawhid is very much grounded in the Quran


                          But...do keep in mind that Islam is NOT Christianity. These 2 religions have different histories, philosophies and world-views/paradigms.
                          The Muslim argument is that BOTH Christians and Muslims worship the SAME God---just that Christians have complicated their theology to such a degree that they can fall into Shirk. This is also a Christian concern---which is why tri-theism is considered "wrong" in Christianity and they/Christians insist they are "monotheists".

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by siam View Post
                            Does it appear in the Quran?---Yes it does......but its complicated..............
                            Then just quote us a passage in the Quran where we all can see the word "Tawheed" in whatever spelling??? Simple as that!

                            Originally posted by siam View Post
                            As explained before---the Arabic language is NOT English and therefore does not follow the rules of English language grammar...obviously.....

                            Words in the Semitic languages are formed using root-words...and these then form into various grammatical terms..
                            ..

                            List a passage in the Qur'an where the word Tawheed appears, please. Simple questiion so why all the bloviation??

                            Originally posted by siam View Post
                            The 2 Arabic words that exemplify tawheed are---ahad (unique) and wahid (one)
                            ahad appears 85 times in the Quran (in 2 forms)
                            https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=AHd
                            wahid appears 68 times in the Quran (in 4 forms)
                            https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wHd
                            I didn't ask for words that exemplify Tawheed, sir, Where does the word Tawheed appear in the Qur'an. Something you don't understand about that simple question?


                            Originally posted by siam View Post
                            Tawheed comes from wahid/wahada.
                            https://portalislam.org/index.php/tawheed-of-allah
                            The word "Tawheed" is grammatically a gerund, a noun made from a verb, the Arabic verb it is derived from is wahada or wahidu. The verb wahada means to unify something, to make something one or to declare something to be one. Linguistically tawheed means to affirm and declare something to be one, i.e. unification into one. Islamically it is in reference to Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) being singled out alone, in all that is particular to him. This uniqueness and oneness, separating Him and distinguishing Him from His creation is the opposite of 'Shirk' which is to associate partners with Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) by giving His qualities and attributes, to other than Allah
                            Blabbergab! I know what tawheed means .... show me the word in the Qur'an.

                            Originally posted by siam View Post
                            Tawheed/Tawhid is very much grounded in the Quran
                            The concept of Tawheed is. Show us THE WORD in the Quran.

                            Originally posted by siam View Post
                            But...do keep in mind that Islam is NOT Christianity. These 2 religions have different histories, philosophies and world-views/paradigms.
                            Indeed! And a different God!! Thank you!

                            Originally posted by siam View Post
                            The Muslim argument is that BOTH Christians and Muslims worship the SAME God--- ....
                            Sir, I have attended the Muslim Brotherhood's professionally orchestrated so called "interfaith dialog" blabbergabs. I know the argument.

                            Originally posted by siam View Post
                            ... just that Christians have complicated their theology to such a degree that they can fall into Shirk. This is also a Christian concern---which is why tri-theism is considered "wrong" in Christianity and they/Christians insist they are "monotheists".
                            Tritheism is a heresy, sir..

                            Now ... back to the Tawheed thingie ..... Where do we find the WORD TAWHEED in the Qur'an?? QUOTE IT FOR US! Such a simple question does not require a lot of smokescreen words [blabbergab], sir. So why take up bandwidth trying to hide from the simple straight forward answer???

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by siam View Post

                              Does it appear in the Quran?---Yes it does......but its complicated..............

                              As explained before---the Arabic language is NOT English and therefore does not follow the rules of English language grammar...obviously.....

                              Words in the Semitic languages are formed using root-words...and these then form into various grammatical terms....

                              The 2 Arabic words that exemplify tawheed are---ahad (unique) and wahid (one)
                              ahad appears 85 times in the Quran (in 2 forms)
                              https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=AHd
                              wahid appears 68 times in the Quran (in 4 forms)
                              https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wHd

                              Tawheed comes from wahid/wahada.
                              https://portalislam.org/index.php/tawheed-of-allah
                              The word "Tawheed" is grammatically a gerund, a noun made from a verb, the Arabic verb it is derived from is wahada or wahidu. The verb wahada means to unify something, to make something one or to declare something to be one. Linguistically tawheed means to affirm and declare something to be one, i.e. unification into one. Islamically it is in reference to Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) being singled out alone, in all that is particular to him. This uniqueness and oneness, separating Him and distinguishing Him from His creation is the opposite of 'Shirk' which is to associate partners with Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) by giving His qualities and attributes, to other than Allah

                              Tawheed/Tawhid is very much grounded in the Quran


                              But...do keep in mind that Islam is NOT Christianity. These 2 religions have different histories, philosophies and world-views/paradigms.
                              The Muslim argument is that BOTH Christians and Muslims worship the SAME God---just that Christians have complicated their theology to such a degree that they can fall into Shirk. This is also a Christian concern---which is why tri-theism is considered "wrong" in Christianity and they/Christians insist they are "monotheists".
                              As you say, the concept is "grounded" in the qur'an, but as Trucker has pointed out the word itself is not contained in the qur'an. That isn't "complicated" at all.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                As you say, the concept is "grounded" in the qur'an, but as Trucker has pointed out the word itself is not contained in the qur'an. That isn't "complicated" at all.
                                But evidently he'd rater run up 10 flights of stairs than to just comfortably sit at a keyboard and admit a simple and obvious truth. Also this eposes the double standard employed by many Muslims who post on the internet. No one here of course.
                                Last edited by Trucker; 12-06-2020, 04:41 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, 11-13-2020, 09:15 AM
                                57 responses
                                492 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X